Paul Ryan!!

[Ridgerunner]

Vouchers funded by Congress will be subject to future reduction at any time!

Sanders debunked the Romney lie about preserving Medicare, “Well everybody understands that they are destroying Medicare as it is currently constituted. What they intend to do is convert Medicare over a period of years into a voucher program. So what they’re going to say to a 70 year old senior who is dealing with cancer or heart disease here is a check for eight thousand dollars, go out and get the best private insurance that you can, and lots of luck. Now you tell me, Ed if somebody is dealing with cancer or heart disease, or a serious illness what eight thousand dollars is going to do. Everybody knows what it means is that a). Seniors are going to have to come up with more money out of their own pocket, or their kids are going to have to help them, or worse, they’re not going to get the care they need.”

The senior is not going to be given your hypothetical $8,000 for his illness but for his insurance plan. If my business, say, spends $3,000/year for my insurance, the insurance covers a lot more than $3,000 in potential medical costs.

This fellow Sanders is just in error, plain and simple.

And while I’m not sure I would trust Congress overmuch, I would trust some future congress over Obama, who changes medical coverages by uninlateral decree.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The funding source for the vouchers is the same funding source that currently pays the Medicare providers…tax dollars. Right now we employed persons pay Medicare tax on every dollar of wages & salary. The government then takes that money and through non government clearing houses that process claims, pays the money directly to providers.

Imagine the voucher plan. The dollars collected on the working people are then transmitted to the SENIOR who makes decisions regarding his or her own healthcare insurance. Those who are lower income get more money, those with higher incomes get less support.

The beauty of this system is that it puts people in charge of their healthcare and when they are spending their own money, trust me they are far more careful. One person might want a higher deductible “bare bones” plan while another would prefer very low copayments and deductibles.

You’re right we can’t protect everyone from making bad decisions but they make bad decisions now. This will never change. Human nature is human nature. But the Ryan plan lets people make their own decisions whereas Obamacare takes this away from both the payers and more importantly the patients.

Lisa

The people who would have the most to complain about in this is “the rich”. Instead of getting exactly the same benefit as a poor person, which is the case now, the rich guy will get less.

How Democrats can condemn that and keep a straight face is beyond my understanding.
They demonize “the rich” every day, but when somebody actually reduces a subsidy to the rich, they howl and scream.

 

[bellasbane]

Nancy Pelosi also throws around the name of Thomas Aquinas. Many would argue that she isn’t following in the Catholic tradition.

Quote? Source? Context?

If you want a discussion, you need to provide more information than that.

 

[DeSanto]

Boy you completely mistinterpreted my post. I have read through your response three times and it makes no sense at all but maybe that’s the point.

Will you answer my question? Do you think the people on this forum would withhold support from the truly needy?

Before stumbling into this forum I would have said no. After two days here, I wonder. I guess it depends on if someone lives up to your standard of truly needy.

You somehow equate our reluctance to pay for bloated and inefficient, ineffective and wasteful government programs as a lack of CHARITY. You have completely mixed up the two concepts. Taxation and government assistance is not CHARITY. Please re-read Scott’s most excellent explanation of the difference.

Mitt Romney apparently does not pay in any more taxes than he is required to pay. Neither does Warren Buffet and neither do you. So what? That just proves you are following the law and taking advantage of its provisions regarding your income and deductions.

Yes, surely you can agree the tax laws are rigged to benefit those top earners and needs to be reformed?

This is in no way equivalent to the waste and fraud in government programs. It is in no way equivalent to those who feel they are owed yours and my tax dollars and thus will game the system to get support rather than make an effort themselves. As I said, both from statistical evidence and from years and years of volunteering at various homeless shelters, drug rehab, youth centers, child services organizations, what I see is a lot of people who intentionally game the system and take money they neither earned nor deserve. You can’t seem to distinguish between someone keeping money they earned and someone else taking money they are not entitled to by either effort or true need.

Again, I would be fine with it if the top earners did not pay less percentage wise than their secretary…hint to the Warren Buffet plug.

There is a difference. Do you see it or are you simply assuming every person on government assistance has good intentions and wants to be self reliant and responsible?

And you assume most are not. I believe you are wrong. I believe people are protecting their chidren with gauranteed health coverage, food stamps is secondary and less the issue.B]
Lisa

 

[LisaA]

you mean people who lost their jobs to no fault of their own should not be eligible for assistance? I get it people. There may be some that can work but do not. Did you ever consider that is because they would be worse off if they did work. Check this out: Say a person wants to work and is willing to give up the food assistance money and pay additional money for child care on top of that. Even if their job paid only enough to cover that amount. Why don’t they? It is not the food money people are applying for, it is health insurance for their children. The reason they don’t leave the assistance program is because they will put their children as risk with no health insurance. Most jobs do not provide health insurance anymore. Especially entry level jobs for people without college educations. And even if the job did provide insurance we all know the cost of that, let’s add that to the bill. People are applying for Medicaid for their children, the food stamps is just a bonus if your bad enough off. My father, before he died in 2008, was living alone, unemployed, no retirement, and was going to some run down health clinic with his medicaid and just enough ss to provide a run down efficiency apartment, he barely got enough food stamp money to survive. He would have to get food from the church to supplement. I hardley think that is living large on food stamps. You all have a misunderstanding about food stamps. It is not meant to provide you with all your food cost requirements…it is meant to HELP with the cost. Most people make it stretch as much as possible to make it last the entire month but it is not supposed to cover an entire months worth of food. Now you all can make the case all day long how you’re tax money is wasted but you’re the ones that are being deceived. I can assure you I am very thankful for the assistance my father received from your tax dollars. THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART. I wish I could do something to prove to yours and my tax money is not wasted.

You can’t because we KNOW it’s being wasted. We see it every day. Again you seem to think that everyone on assistance is like you. They are not.

Further the point was that Obama gutted the work requirements, one of the most successful provisions regarding moving people off of public assistance. The “work requirements” were not that draconian. No one was forced to slave away digging holes and filling them up just to get TANF. Instead they were to either get training or a job. Now they can get welfare for getting massages, reading self help books, or going on a diet.
Do you think people won’t take advantage of this?

The problem with no strings attached welfare is that it becomes a mindset and generational. Again statistics back this up. My experience backs this up. When I was a CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) I saw the same pattern over and over. Single female, several children, less than a high school education, often a substance abuse problem. When I looked at the family background, these women were also products of single mothers, no fathers, no emphasis on education or job training. When you are raised in that enviornment that’s what you see. A fish sees water. That’s because he IS in water. People raised with government as the provider simply follow the pattern unless there is intervention.

I don’t know why you refuse to acknowledge that we are not either addressing or solving the problem of poverty with the current system. It’s broken and serves those in the Social Industrial Complex far more than it serves the future generations.
Lisa

 

[gnjsdad]

I don’t know why you refuse to acknowledge that we are not either addressing or solving the problem of poverty with the current system. It’s broken and serves those in the Social Industrial Complex far more than it serves the future generations.
Lisa

“Social Industrial Complex”??

 

[Ecoclimber]

The people who would have the most to complain about in this is “the rich”. Instead of getting exactly the same benefit as a poor person, which is the case now, the rich guy will get less.

How Democrats can condemn that and keep a straight face is beyond my understanding.
They demonize “the rich” every day, but when somebody actually reduces a subsidy to the rich, they howl and scream.

Jesus demonized the Rich as well. Your statement belies your Christian faith

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat but a Christian Catholic

 

[DeSanto]

This is in no way equivalent to the waste and fraud in government programs. It is in no way equivalent to those who feel they are owed yours and my tax dollars and thus will game the system to get support rather than make an effort themselves. As I said, both from statistical evidence and from years and years of volunteering at various homeless shelters, drug rehab, youth centers, child services organizations, what I see is a lot of people who intentionally game the system and take money they neither earned nor deserve.
Lisa

Actually Lisa, I am hear to tell you that you’re tax money is greatly appreciated and accomplishes way more than you obviously have any clue about. I want to say thank you to you for your contribution to our country and the least in it. I wish there was something I could do or say to let you know how much it means to so many people that that assistance program was there for them in their time of need. I pray you would never have to be in that position yourself. I also pray the truly needy will not be punished for the abhorant behavior of some that may take advantage and waste all of our tax dollars. I wish everything could be more perfect, but it’s not. We got to take the good with the bad.

As far as my comments on Romney. It is not right for a man running for president to send his money to other countries in order to get out of paying a higher tax rate in the country he claims to protect. That’s all. He should put his money into the American economy. In my mind there is no difference in a rich man or a poor man gaming the system to avoid their responsibilities. THEY ARE BOTH WRONG was my point.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Jesus demonized the Rich as well. Your statement belies your Christian faith

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat but a Christian Catholic

Jesus never “demonized” the rich. He demonized the Pharisees. He does not hate wealth, He hates hypocrisy.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Actually Lisa, I am hear to tell you that you’re tax money is greatly appreciated and accomplishes way more than you obviously have any clue about. I want to say thank you to you for your contribution to our country and the least in it. I wish there was something I could do or say to let you know how much it means to so many people that that assistance program was there for them in their time of need. I pray you would never have to be in that position yourself. I also pray the truly needy will not be punished for the abhorant behavior of some that may take advantage and waste all of our tax dollars. I wish everything could be more perfect, but it’s not. We got to take the good with the bad.

As far as my comments on Romney. It is not right for a man running for president to send his money to other countries in order to get out of paying a higher tax rate in the country he claims to protect. That’s all. He should put his money into the American economy. In my mind there is no difference in a rich man or a poor man gaming the system to avoid their responsibilities. THEY ARE BOTH WRONG was my point.

Having money in a foreign bank does not protect it from taxes. It protects it from a collapse of the American banking system. Romney has declared all of his overseas accounts and the IRS hasn’t said a peep about him “hiding money”. Money in an account is not income, it is an asset. If the money is in the bank already, it has already been subjected to income taxes, so putting it in a foreign account is already post-facto taxation. The point of the matter is that Swiss bank accounts are very, very safe havens for money because they have strict rules on how people operate their accounts and most of the deposits are backed with gold. Here in the US, your deposits are backed by funny money from the Federal Reserve and the “full faith and credit of the United States”…something that is carrying less and less worth as time progresses and as the US debt climbs over $16 trillion.

 

[LisaA]

DeSanto your method of taking your whole post and putting it in quotes makes it diffucult to respond point by point but I will try.

I don’t know why you think people on this forum are so hard hearted. No one has expressed the desire to pull food from the mouths of babes or let people die in the streets. OTOH when people suggest that individuals do what they can to support themselves or their families you presume the worst. Further you constantly laud the wonderful government programs although it has been demonstrated repeatedly they are wasteful and ineffective. Those programs that ARE effective are under attack by this President. Are you aware that he removed CHOICE from low income mothers with respect to schooling for their children? The voucher system for schools helps get children out of the horrible inner city publis schools. But teacher’s unions hate vouchers. I think we can all get behind improving education, particularly for those born with the disadvantages of the children in D.C. Why is it that the same bleeding hearts that want our tax dollars try to destroy programs that work? Oh that’s right…because their constituancies are threatened…

As to Romney’s taxes or Buffet’s taxes, the percentage paid depends on the type of income. At this point Romney and Buffet receive more investment income than wages. So their RATE is lower than the highest bracket for wages. Several reasons for this treatment; one is that this income has already been taxed. When a company declares a dividend, the company has paid taxes on it. The receiver of the dividend would be paying double the tax on the same income. That is a concept that has routinely been rejected. Further, much of the tax policy is to provide incentive to save rather than spend money, also to make long term investments instead of churning stock. The trade of current income for a perceived societal good (savings and investment) is one made by Congress.

Taxes have been used rightly or wrongly for societal engineering. You probably love Section 8 housing. Are you aware that Section 8 housing was a tax shelter for rich people? If not for the tax benefits, investors would not take the lower than average return. Again, a social benefit traded for lower tax revenue. Is this evil? Rich people getting tax bennies for poor people to have housing? I suspect for you it’s all dependent on whose ox is being gored.

Ditto with tax free bonds. These bonds are used to fund public projects. Again rich people get tax free income but the city gets to build a stadium or a public park or other public benefit project. Is this evil? Rich people getting a tax break so the public can benefit?

You have a very simplistic approach to tax laws but they are very complex with complex and long term ramifications. You seem to think “EVIL RICH PERSON PAYING LOWER TAXES” without understanding the purpose of those laws.

I am certainly not defending the laws, some of which may be ill advised. But I don’t think your attitude toward high income people who pay the vast majority of taxes is one of appreciation but rather resentment. Were you as appreciative of the people who pay the taxes to provide these government programs as you seem to be of the government who simply distributes OPM.

Lisa

 

[DeSanto]

“Social Industrial Complex”??

If only I had more money, then maybe I’d get more respect from a Catholic website.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Jesus demonized the Rich as well. Your statement belies your Christian faith

How, exactly, does my statement make my Christian faith a lie? When one makes such an incredibly judgmental assertion as yours, one ought to feel obligated to back it up with facts. You, who do not know me at all, should, for that very reason, feel doubly obligated to explain why you judged that my Christian faith is a lie.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

If only I had more money, then maybe I’d get more respect from a Catholic website.

:ehh:

 

[bellasbane]

Further the point was that Obama gutted the work requirements, one of the most successful provisions regarding moving people off of public assistance.

You’re repeating a lie that every reputable news organization has already debunked. In granting state waivers, the Obama administration did not eliminate the work requirement:

“HHS is encouraging states to consider new, more effective ways to meet the goals of TANF, particularly helping parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment. Therefore, HHS is issuing this information memorandum to notify states of the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her waiver authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families.”

acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html

Here is a story from Romney’s home town newspaper that includes the FACTS:
boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/08/07/romney-accuses-obama-waiving-welfare-work-requirements/aCx5F3hPGNdjYxTeRlcq7M/story.html

But there is no doubt that Romney is strongly in favor of work requirements in welfare. Heartlessly so…

"But Romney was a clear advocate of welfare work mandates in 2005 and was criticized by Massachusetts Democrats for being so stringent.

At the time, Massachusetts was already operating under a federal waiver that made its welfare work requirements among the weakest in the nation. In July 2005, Romney filed a bill that would have more than doubled the number of state welfare recipients required to work. His plan would have increased the number of hours welfare recipients were required to work and capped benefits at five years.

“I’m convinced this … allows people to have the dignity and the opportunity for themselves and their children to recognize the importance of work in their lives,” Romney said at a press conference, announcing his plan.

Particularly controversial was Romney’s proposal to eliminate work exemptions for pregnant women in the third trimester, mothers with children between 1 and 2 years old and about 5,600 people who met state disability standards but not federal ones.

Even welfare recipients caring for disabled relatives and teenagers in school would have had some work requirements.

State lawmakers overwhelmingly rejected Romney’s plan."

Thank God for Massachusetts - the most Catholic state in the Union!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Paul Ryan is a Catholic. He represents the views of many Catholics on this forum and perhaps some Bishops. The flurry of responses to my initial post is typical of what you get here. The problem is that claiming these views are based on traditional Catholic social teaching is false.

And Catholics on this forum claiming that the Democratic Party platform’s social programs are based on traditional Catholic social teaching is false. Such Catholics either have been inadequately catechized, or have failed to inform themselves of the full scope of Democratic social programs, and how those affect the poor.

The Democratic Party is not a synonym for Catholic social justice. It is far from that, by any true Catholic’s full understanding of our religion’s social teaching: Aquinas, any bishop, any Pope, any Catholic politician, any member of a religious order (Sisters included), any Catholic layperson. To rationalize a vote for Democratic Party positions as being more “in line with Catholic social justice” is just that: a rationalization. There is no substantiation for the claim.
​

​

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Thank God for Massachusetts - the most Catholic state in the Union!

And home of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, the most Catholic politicians in the Union…

errrr…

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Having money in a foreign bank does not protect it from taxes. It protects it from a collapse of the American banking system. Romney has declared all of his overseas accounts and the IRS hasn’t said a peep about him “hiding money”. Money in an account is not income, it is an asset. If the money is in the bank already, it has already been subjected to income taxes, so putting it in a foreign account is already post-facto taxation. The point of the matter is that Swiss bank accounts are very, very safe havens for money because they have strict rules on how people operate their accounts and most of the deposits are backed with gold. Here in the US, your deposits are backed by funny money from the Federal Reserve and the “full faith and credit of the United States”…something that is carrying less and less worth as time progresses and as the US debt climbs over $16 trillion.

Thank you for explaining this. It’s already been taxed. And as long as the IRS knows about Romney’s money, I have no problem where he keeps it - under a mattress or in a Swiss bank account.

 

[LisaA]

“Social Industrial Complex”??

It’s a take off from Eisenhower’s Military Industrial Complex. Just as with the military we have created a huge industry in social services, social engineering, etc. There are many people and many companies that have a huge vested interest in maintaining the government programs that feed them. They are like every orgnism, wanting to survive. Look at organizations like Planned Parenthood. A supposedly private, “non-profit” that is so ingrained and intertwined in our government that without government support it would not exist. It is a true parasite and it’s not unique.

I wish I could find the quote but the gist was that for every dollar supposedly intended for “the poor” most gets taken by indirect expenses rather than actually helping the poor. That is why I greatly support direct charity organiztions with direct and personal contact with those being served. It not only helps the person in need, it helps the person who is directly involved personalize the issue and express our Christian faith as we were taught by Christ.

Lisa

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

And Catholics on this forum claiming that the Democratic Party platform’s social programs are based on traditional Catholic social teaching is false. Such Catholics either have been inadequately catechized, or have failed to inform themselves of the full scope of Democratic social programs, and how those affect the poor.

The Democratic Party is not a synonym for Catholic social justice. It is far from that, by any true Catholic’s full understanding of our religion’s social teaching: Aquinas, any bishop, any Pope, any Catholic politician, any member of a religious order (Sisters included), any Catholic layperson. To rationalize a vote for Democratic Party positions as being more “in line with Catholic social justice” is just that: a rationalization. There is no substantiation for the claim.

The Democrat Party is a synonym for entitlement slavery.